Tina Marie Hodge v. Chadwick Craig

Tina Marie Hodge v. Chadwick Craig

M2009-00930-SC-R11-CV

This appeal requires the Court to determine whether current Tennessee law permits theformer husband of a child’s mother to pursue a claim against his former spouse forintentional or negligent misrepresentation regarding the identity of the child’s biologicalfather. Following the dissolution of their nine-year marriage, the former husband of thechild’s mother discovered that he was not the child’s biological father. He filed suit againstthe child’s mother in the Chancery Court for Maury County, alleging that she hadintentionally misled him into believing that he was the child’s biological father. Followinga bench trial, the trial court found that the mother’s former husband had proved that hisformer wife had intentionally misrepresented the parentage of the child and awarded him$134,877.90 in compensatory damages for the child support, medical expenses, andinsurance premiums he had paid following the divorce, emotional distress, and attorney’sfees. The child’s mother appealed. Even though the Court of Appeals determined that theevidence supported the trial court’s finding that the child’s mother had intentionallymisrepresented the identity of the child’s biological father, it (1) reversed the damage awardbased on the post-divorce payments for child support, medical expenses, and insuranceexpenses on the ground that these damages amounted to a prohibited retroactive modificationof a child support order, (2) reversed the damage award for emotional distress, and (3)reversed the award for attorney’s fees. Hodge v. Craig, No. M2009-00930-COA-R3-CV,2010 WL 4024990, at *12 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 13, 2010). The former husband filed anapplication for permission to appeal arguing that Tennessee should permit recovery in casesof this sort for intentional or negligent misrepresentation of a child’s paternity. We havedetermined that the existing common-law action for intentional misrepresentationencompasses the claims made in this case by the former husband and that the trial court’sdamage award based on the former husband’s post-divorce payments for child support,medical expenses, and insurance premiums is not an improper retroactive modification of theformer husband’s child support obligation.